Skip to content

Social-Chauvinists and Internationalists

Marxist Theory · 2026-05-13

Core Argument

Lenin's central thesis is that the First World War exposed a fundamental cleavage within the Second International, one that cannot be resolved by appeals to unity or by the construction of a "centre" position. The social-chauvinists — socialists who supported "their own" national bourgeoisie in the imperialist war — are not simply mistaken or temporarily misled; they are consistent agents of capitalism, whose temporary splits and reunions mirror the conflicts and reconciliations of the capitalist class itself. Against this, Lenin argues that the only principled position is a complete and irreparable break with the social-chauvinists, and that the task of revolutionary Marxists is to begin constructing a Third International from the ground up, not to seek unity with those who have betrayed socialism. The article is a polemical intervention in a specific tactical dispute — whether the Bolsheviks should attend a conference organised by the Danish social-chauvinist Borgbjerg — but it generalises from this to a strategic orientation: the fight against opportunism requires organisational separation, not conciliation.

Theoretical Grounding

Lenin's analysis is grounded in the Marxist theory of the state and the class character of the imperialist epoch. The key conceptual move is to treat the social-chauvinists not as individuals who have made an error of judgement, but as the political expression of a material relationship: the bribery of a layer of the labour aristocracy by super-profits extracted from the colonies. This is the theoretical foundation of Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, written the year before this article. The social-chauvinists are not simply traitors in a moral sense; they are the organic product of a specific phase of capitalist development, in which the bourgeoisie can afford to buy off a section of the working class and its political representatives.

The article also draws on the Marxist tradition's long struggle against opportunism, from Marx and Engels' fight against the Lassalleans through to the struggle against Bernsteinian revisionism. Lenin's method is to refuse the false choice between "sectarian isolation" and "unity at any price". He insists that the only way to help waverers is to cease wavering oneself — a formulation that echoes Marx's insistence that the emancipation of the working class must be the work of the working class itself, and that clarity of principle is a precondition for building a real mass movement.

Conjunctural Relevance

The article was published in Pravda on 12 May (29 April) 1917, in the immediate aftermath of the February Revolution in Russia. The Petrograd Soviet was dominated by a coalition of Mensheviks and Socialist Revolutionaries who pursued a policy of "revolutionary defencism" — support for the Provisional Government and continuation of the war. The Bolsheviks, under Lenin's leadership, were a minority in the Soviet, and the question of whether to participate in international conferences alongside social-chauvinists was a live tactical question.

The specific event that triggers the article is Borgbjerg's conference, an attempt by the Danish social-chauvinist to assemble a "socialist" conference that would include both social-chauvinists and the "Centre" (Kautskyites). Lenin reports that the German Spartacus group (Liebknecht's organisation) refused to attend, while Haase (Germany) and Longuet (France) — figures of the "Centre" — agreed. This confirms Lenin's argument that the "Centre" is not a principled alternative but a wavering position that collapses into collaboration with the social-chauvinists when tested.

The article's relevance to the current conjuncture is twofold. First, it provides a theoretical framework for understanding how opportunism operates within the workers' movement: not as a simple error, but as the political reflection of material privileges extracted from imperialist exploitation. Second, it offers a strategic orientation for the present period of capitalist crisis and war: the necessity of building a revolutionary international on the basis of a complete break with reformism and social-patriotism. The RCI's own project of constructing a new International, and its polemics against the "left reformism" of figures like Bernie Sanders or Jeremy Corbyn, are direct continuations of this Leninist method.

Where the Argument Continues

This article is a fragment of a much larger polemical and theoretical campaign. The argument is developed at length in Lenin's Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916), which provides the economic analysis of the labour aristocracy. It is also elaborated in The State and Revolution (1917), which grounds the necessity of breaking with the bourgeois state apparatus. Within the IDOM corpus, the themes of this article are taken up in numerous pieces on the crisis of social-democracy, the rise of left nationalism, and the tasks of building a revolutionary international. The Against the Stream podcast episodes on the history of the Second International and the origins of the First World War provide accessible introductions to the same terrain.

Connections

  • Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism — the economic foundation for the analysis of social-chauvinism.
  • Lenin, The State and Revolution — the political conclusion: the necessity of smashing the bourgeois state.
  • Trotsky, The Struggle for a Revolutionary International — a later development of the same strategic orientation.
  • Rosa Luxemburg, The Crisis of German Social Democracy (the Junius Pamphlet) — a contemporary analysis of the collapse of the Second International, though with different tactical conclusions.
  • IDOM articles on the crisis of social-democracy and the construction of the Fifth International — contemporary applications of the same method.

Key Quotes

  1. "By betraying socialism and going over to the side of 'their own' capitalists, the social-chauvinists have naturally split up in conformity with the capitalist groupings in the war. The split itself, just as naturally, is a temporary one."

  2. "Plekhanov is for unity with the Scheidemanns when the 'masters' (i.e., the capitalists of both countries) are reconciled. There is no denying a certain consistency in Plekhanov's position—the consistency of betrayal of socialism, the consistency of willing and faithful service to the capitalists."

  3. "When things came to a practical point and a clear and definite answer had to be given immediately on the question of making common cause with Scheidemann and his agents, the alliance between Liebknecht's group and the Kautsky group crumbled at once."

  4. "Some comrades feared that our resolution concerning Borgbjerg would 'isolate' us. No, comrades! It isolates us from the waverers. There is only one way of helping waverers, and that is by ceasing to be a waverer yourself."

  5. "In taking upon itself the initiative in bringing about such a cleavage, our Party has already started to rally the elements of a Third International."

  6. "The fact that our tactics coincide with those of the Liebknecht group is no accident. It is a step towards the inchoate Third International."